Judgment :- 1. The challenge in these two writ petitions is directed against an order dated 25 - 9 -1972 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University determining a dispute relating to seniority as between two Lecturers in Zoology working in the St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry. A copy of the impugned order has been produced and marked as Ext. P8 in each of the writ petitions. By the said order the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the powers vested in him under Statute 56 of Chapter XLIX of the First Statutes of the Kerala University, 1972 has declared that in the category of Lecturer in Zoology in the St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry Shri. Thomas Abraham who is the 3rd respondent in O.P No, 4511 of 1972 and the 1st respondent in O.P. No. 22 of 1973, is senior to Shri. T. M. Joseph who is the writ petitioner in O.P. No. 4511 of 1972.0 P. No. 22 of 1973 is a writ petition filed by the Manager of the St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry seeking to quash Ext. P8. 2. O.P. No. 4511 of 1972 will be treated as the main case and the parties will hereinafter be referred to in accordance with their ranking and array in that writ petition wherein Shri. T. M. Joseph is the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor, University of Kerala is the 1st respondent, the Manager, St. Thomas College, Kozencherry is the 2nd respondent and Shri. Thomas Abraham figures as the 3rd respondent. 3. The petitioner Shri. T. M. Joseph was appointed as a Demonstrator in Zoology in the St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry on 10 - 7 -1961 and ever since that date he has been continuously working in the service of the said institution. He holds a IInd Class B. Sc. Degree in Zoology and also a IIIrd Class M. Sc. Degree in the said subject. Under Ordinance 5 of Chapter XV of the Ordinances framed by the Syndicate of the Kerala University under the Kerala University Act, 1957 the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer was a 1st or IInd Class Honours or Master's Degree in the concerned subject. Ordinance 7 empowered the Syndicate to grant exemption from the prescribed qualification in the case of teachers who had a minimum of seven years teaching experience. Ordinance 7 empowered the Syndicate to grant exemption from the prescribed qualification in the case of teachers who had a minimum of seven years teaching experience. It would appear that notwithstanding the stipulations contained in Ordinance 7 that a teacher should have acquired seven years' teaching experience in order to be eligible for the grant of exemption from the prescribed qualification, the Syndicate of the Kerala University had been taking the view that it was within its power to relax the rigour of the said Ordinance in appropriate and deserving cases and to grant exemption from the prescribed qualification even to teachers who had not completed seven years' service. Thus, in a large number of cases such exemptions had been granted by the Syndicate of the University to teachers who had not completed seven years' service and by virtue thereof many such teachers have been functioning as Lecturers for several years. The petitioner Shri. T. M. Joseph is one amongst them. 4. At the beginning of the academic year 1965 66 the management promoted the petitioner as Lecturer in Zoology with effect from 161965 and moved the Syndicate for the grant of exemption to him from the prescribed qualification. By that time the petitioner had acquired only four years' teaching experience. The Syndicate considered the request of the management and granted a temporary exemption to the petitioner to hold the post of Lecturer for the academic year 1965-66. Ext. P1 is a copy of the communication sent by the Registrar of the University to the management of the St. Thomas College intimating the latter about the grant of the temporary exemption to the petitioner. By a separate order, the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Zoology was also approved by the Syndicate. During the academic year 1966-67 the management continued the petitioner in the post of Lecturer and moved the Syndicate for extension of the exemption granted to him. By the communication Ext. P2 dated 16th December. 1966 the Principal of the St. Thomas College was informed by the Registrar of the University that temporary exemption was granted to the petitioner for the year 1966-67 and that the petitioner was also granted permanent exemption from the prescribed qualification with effect from 10 71966.On the basis of the said order the petitioner has been thereafter regularly continuing in the post of Lecturer in Zoology in the College. 5. 5. The 3rd respondent Shri. Thomas Abraham was appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology in the St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry on 16 61965. He holds a IInd Class B. Sc. Degree in Zoology and also a IInd Class M. Sc. Degree in the said subject, and was therefore fully qualified for appointment to the post. He was confirmed as a Lecturer in the service of the College with effect from 16 61967. It is averred in both the writ petitions that in the various seniority lists prepared by the College from 1965 onwards and circulated among the members of its staff from time to time the petitioner had been invariably ranked above the 3rd respondent amongst the Lecturers in the Zoology Department and that likewise in all the other concerned records of the College, such as the College calendars, the acquittance rolls, the departmental attendance registers and the half-yearly staff returns sent by the management to the University the 3rd respondent had always been shown as junior in relation to the writ petitioner. A copy of the seniority list published in the College on 27 81965 has been produced along with O.P. No. 4511 of 1972 and marked as Ext. P5. Ext. P3 in O.P. No. 22 of 1973 is a true extract from the department-wise seniority list prepared by the College management on 5101966. It is averred in both the writ petitions that the 3rd respondent did not raise any objection to the ranking assigned to him in the aforementioned seniority lists and the similar lists published during the succeeding years wherein also he had been shown as the petitioner's junior. 6. After the Kerala University Act. 1969 was brought into force with effect from 28 21969 the Principal of the College prepared and circulated amongst the members of the staff a department-wise seniority list on 29-12-1971. calling for objections, if any, to the said list. In that list the petitioner was ranked as serial No. 2 amongst the Lecturers in the Department of Zoology and the 3rd respondent was ranked as serial No. 3 consistently with the inter se ranking that had been assigned to them in the earlier seniority lists. The 3rd respondent then filed a representation objecting to the said ranking and claiming that he is entitled to seniority over the writ petitioner. The 3rd respondent then filed a representation objecting to the said ranking and claiming that he is entitled to seniority over the writ petitioner. The Governing Council of the College considered the said representation and rejected the same holding that. since the writ petitioner had been appointed as a Lecturer earlier than the 3rd respondent the petitioner had been correctly shown as senior to the 3rd respondent. By a letter dated 29 51972 the Principal of the College informed the 3rd respondent about the said decision of the Governing Council rejecting his representation. 7. In the meantime, the State Government, in exercise of the powers vested in it by S.76 of the Kerala University Act, 1969 promulgated the Kerala University First Statutes, 1972 and brought them into force with effect from 6th March, 1972. Statute 56 of Chapter XLIX of the First Statutes, 1972 laid down inter alia that every College shall maintain a seniority list of teachers and that any dispute relating to seniority shall be heard and decided by the Vice-Chancellor. Taking advantage of the said provision the 3rd respondent moved the Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University (Ist respondent) by a petition dated 7 61972 challenging the correctness of the decision of the Governing Council of the College declaring the writ petitioner as entitled to seniority over him and requesting the Vice-Chancellor to grant a declaration that he (3rd respondent) is the seniormost Lecturer in the Department of Zoology in the St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry. The main ground taken by the 3rd respondent in that petition was that the exemption granted to the petitioner by the Syndicate of the Kerala University as per the orders evidenced by Ext. P1 dated 24 81966 and Ext. P2 dated 16121966 was not valid since the petitioner did not have seven years' teaching experience at the time of the grant of such exemption and that the appointment given to the writ petitioner as Lecturer on the strength of Exts. P1 and P2 has therefore to be regarded as invalid. It is only on this basis that the 3rd respondent claimed that he was entitled to be declared as the senior most Lecturer in the Department of Zoology. 8. By the impugned order Ext. P1 and P2 has therefore to be regarded as invalid. It is only on this basis that the 3rd respondent claimed that he was entitled to be declared as the senior most Lecturer in the Department of Zoology. 8. By the impugned order Ext. P8 dated 25 91972 the Vice-Chancellor accepted the aforesaid contention of the 3rd respondent and declared him to be senior to the writ petitioner in the category of Lecturers in Zoology in the St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry. The reasons which weighed with the Vice-Chancellor (1st respondent) for coming to the said conclusion have been stated by him in the last paragraph of Ext. P8 which reads: "Shri. T. M. Joseph has only a III Class M. Sc.degree in Zoology. He started his leaching career on 10 71961. Under the Ordinances prescribing qualifications and granting exemption, his qualification can be considered as equivalent to the prescribed qualification only from 10 71968 when he completed 7 years teaching experience. Under the Ordinances, the Syndicate is not competent to give him any exemption prior to that date. So if any communication was given about giving him exemption, that communication is invalid and cannot be operative. The Ordinances have clearly stated in Chapter XV, S.1, that no person shall be recognised as a teacher of a College unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post which beholds, in these Ordinances. Shri. T.M. Joseph came to possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of a lecturer only on 10 71968 and so he can be treated as a lecturer in Zoology only with effect from that date. This appellant, Shri. Thomas Abraham, has been a lecturer in Zoology in St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry from 16-6-1965, and so as lecturer this appellant, Shri. Thomas Abraham, is senior to Shri. T.M. Joseph. The management cannot frame any rules of seniority for the teachers of the college except in conformity with the provisions of the University Ordinances. So under the powers vested in the Vice-Chancellor under S.56, Chapter XLIX, of the First Statutes, 1972, to adjudicate any dispute relating to seniority of teachers of affiliated private colleges, I hereby declare that as lecturer in Zoology, St. So under the powers vested in the Vice-Chancellor under S.56, Chapter XLIX, of the First Statutes, 1972, to adjudicate any dispute relating to seniority of teachers of affiliated private colleges, I hereby declare that as lecturer in Zoology, St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry, Shri. Thomas Abraham, the appellant, is senior to Shri. T. M. Joseph, Respondent No. 2." The main contention put forward in the writ petitions is that in exercising the power conferred on him by Statute 56 of Chapter XLIX of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1972 to hear and decide a dispute relating to seniority of teachers it was wholly beyond the competence of the 1st respondent to sit in judgment over the legality and validity of the exemption granted to the petitioner by the Syndicate of the University as per the decisions taken by it in the years 1965 and 1966 or to adjudicate upon the validity of the writ petitioner's appointment made by the management of the College as early as in the year 1965. Counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that there was no provision either in the Kerala University Act, 1957 or in the later Act of 1969 investing the Vice-Chancellor with an appellate, supervisory or corrective jurisdiction in respect of decisions taken by the Syndicate of the University. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that under Statute 56 of Chapter XLIX of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1972 the Vice-Chancellor has been authorised only to decide disputes relating to seniority as between teachers and the said provision has not conferred any jurisdiction on the Vice-Chancellor to adjudicate upon the validity of the appointments of the concerned teachers, particularly when those appointments had been long ago approved by the Syndicate of the University or other concerned authority of the University. The petitioner's counsel argued that unlike a civil court which is vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate on all disputes of a civil nature subject to any statutory provisions restricting or ousting such jurisdiction in respect of any specific subject-matter, a special tribunal created by a statute has no such inherent or unlimited power of jurisdiction and its jurisdiction is strictly limited to the discharge of the specific function that has been expressly entrusted to it under the relevant statutory provisions. On this basis, it is contended that in as much as the Vice-Chancellor has been empowered by Statute 56 only to hear and decide disputes relating to seniority of teachers it was beyond his competence to conduct any inquiry into the question of the validity of the decision taken by the Syndicate many years ago to grant exemption to the petitioner and to approve his appointment as a Lecturer. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that such a challenge against the appointment of the petitioner could not have been made even in a court of law after the expiry of seven years from the date when the Syndicate passed the orders granting the exemption and approving the petitioner's appointment. The petitioner also contends that, in any event, under Regulation.5(1)(b) framed by the Academic Council under S.23 of the Kerala University Act, 1969 published in the Kerala University Notification dated 26th April, 1973 it is specifically laid down that notwithstanding anything contained in the earlier Regulations or Ordinances all teachers who had been granted exemption/approval by the University and who are continuing in the service of any College affiliated to the University shall be deemed to be duly qualified for holding their respective posts and recognised under Regulation.) and that in the light of this provision the declaration made by the Vice-Chancellor about the invalidity of the appointment of the petitioner now stands nullified. Reliance is also placed by the petitioner on S.58(2) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 which lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any law or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, any decision or order exempting any teacher from possessing the prescribed qualifications or approving the appointment of any teacher who did not possess the prescribed qualifications made by any authority or by officer before the commencement of the Kerala University Act, 1974, shall be deemed to have been made by the authority competent to make such decision or order under the said Act and shall be deemed always to have been valid and in accordance with law. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that even if it is to be assumed for the purposes of argument that there was any initial irregularity involved in the action taken by the Syndicate in the year 1966 to grant permanent exemption to the petitioner from possessing the prescribed qualification, the said action has been retrospectively validated by the statute and on this ground also the order Ext. P8 should now be held to be illegal and quashed. 9. The 3rd respondent sought to support the impugned order by urging before this court the same contentions which had been put forward by him before the Vice-Chancellor and which found acceptance at the hands of the said authority. It is contended on his behalf that under the provisions of the Ordinances which were in force in 1965 and 1966 the Syndicate bad no power to grant any exemption to any teacher who did no possess 7 years' teaching experience and that hence the exemption granted to the petitioner was incompetent and void. According to the 3rd respondent, it was perfectly open to the Vice-Chancellor while deciding a dispute relating to the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the 3rd respondent to consider the question whether the petitioner had been validly appointed at all as a Lecturer on the basis of the exemption which the Syndicate had purported to grant in his favour. In answer to the argument of the petitioner based on Regulation.5 (1) (b) of the Regulations framed by the Academic Council it was argued on behalf of the 3rd respondent that it was beyond the powers of the Academic Council to frame any Regulations relating to the qualifications of teachers and that, in any view, a Regulation made by the Academic Council in exercise of the power conferred by the Kerala University Act. 1969 cannot have retrospective effect so as to confer on the petitioner a right to hold the post of Lecturer prior to 28 21969. 10. After giving my careful consideration to the arguments advanced on both sides I have come to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. 11. Statute 56 of Chapter XLIX of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1972 is in the following terms: "Seniority List. Every College shall maintain a seniority list of teachers in the College. 11. Statute 56 of Chapter XLIX of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1972 is in the following terms: "Seniority List. Every College shall maintain a seniority list of teachers in the College. In the event of transfer of a teacher from one College to another under the same management, his seniority shall be safeguarded. It shall be competent for the syndicate to frame necessary rules for fixing the seniority of teachers in private colleges. Any dispute relating to seniority shall be heard by the Vice-Chancellor and his decision thereon shall be final." The jurisdiction conferred on the Vice-Chancellor by the above provision is only to hear and decide any dispute relating to seniority of teachers in private Colleges. The Vice-Chancellor is not empowered by the said provision to embark upon an adjudication about the validity of the very appointment of a teacher who may be a party to such a dispute, by scrutinising and pronouncing upon the legality of the action taken by the management in effecting his appointment and by the Syndicate of the University in approving the same. Otherwise, the result would be that in exercise of his power to decide the dispute relating to seniority the Vice-Chancellor can set at naught appointments of teachers which had been effected by the management and approved by the University many years back by sitting in judgment over the propriety of those actions taken by the management or by the Syndicate. Neither under any provision in the Kerala University Act, 1957 nor by the later Act of 1969 had the Vice-Chancellor been conferred with any appellate, revisional or correctional power in respect of decisions taken by the Syndicate. The decisions taken by the Syndicate, unless subsequently set aside by any other competent authority, have to be treated by the Vice Chancellor as valid and binding in respect of matters arising for consideration before him in the course of adjudication of disputes relating to seniority of teachers under Statute 56 of Chapter XLIX of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1972. A collateral challenge against the decisions of the Syndicate cannot be entertained or adjudicated upon by the Vice-Chancellor in such a proceeding. A collateral challenge against the decisions of the Syndicate cannot be entertained or adjudicated upon by the Vice-Chancellor in such a proceeding. Such being the legal position it was clearly beyond the competence of the Vice-Chancellor while deciding a dispute relating to seniority raised before him in 1972 to sit in judgment over the validity and propriety of the decisions taken by the Syndicate in 1965 and 1966 to grant exemption to the petitioner from the prescribed qualifications. Likewise there was no power vested in the Vice-Chancellor to declare as invalid the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer which had been effected by the management as early as in 1965 and approved by the Syndicate on a permanent basis in 1966. The said appointment which had been made long before the 3rd respondent entered the service of the College had not been questioned by any one before any competent authority within the time allowed by law. The order Ext. P 8 being based solely on the finding entered by the Vice-Chancellor that the appointment given to the petitioner on 161965 as Lecturer in Zoology was invalid and that "he can be treated as a Lecturer in Zoology only with effect from 10 71968" it is clearly unsustainable in law. 12. The petitioner is also on strong ground in his contention based on Regulation.5 (1) (b) of the regulations framed by the Academic Council in the exercise of the powers vested in it by S.23 of the Kerala University Act, 1969. It is, however, unnecessary for this court to consider the said plea in view of the express provision subsequently made by the legislature itself in S.58 (2) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. It is, however, unnecessary for this court to consider the said plea in view of the express provision subsequently made by the legislature itself in S.58 (2) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. S.58 (2) reads: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, any decision or order exempting any teacher from possessing the prescribed qualifications or approving the appointment of any teacher who did not possess the prescribed qualifications or allowing any teacher who did not possess the prescribed qualifications to continue in se.vice, made by any authority or officer before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been made by the authority competent to make such decision or order under this Act as if this Act had been in force at the time when such decision or order was made, and accordingly all such decisions and orders shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been valid and in accordance with law. The effect of the above provision is to confer retrospective validity on all decisions or orders made or passed by any authority or officer of the University prior to the commencement of the Kerala University Act, 1974 exempting any teacher from possessing the prescribed qualifications or approving the appointment of a teacher who did not possess the prescribed qualifications. By virtue of the said provision the exemptions granted to the petitioner by the Syndicate of the Kerala University in 1965 and 1966 and the orders passed in those years by the Syndicate approving the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer have to be deemed always to have been valid even if they were initially tainted by any irregularity. Hence, in the light of S.58 (2) also, the impugned order Ext. P8 cannot stand. 13. In the light of the foregoing discussion Ext. P8 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the Vice-Chancellor to pass fresh orders in the matter relating to the inter se seniority as between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The original petitions are allowed as above. The parties will bear their respective costs. Allowed.